"Women don't cheat on Alpha males"

[Drifterwood]

"Male do this, female do that"
"It's just simple evopopsychology, people!"
LOLOLOLOLOLOL

If you go back to my first post, you'll see that I said the majority or vast majority of women are genetically monogamous.

The question is why some are not and can you infer anything from the various identified groups which can vary from 1% to 10% and yes 30%. The latter is a group that finds itself seeking a paternity test. Who ends up in that group?

Maybe the prince turned out to be a toad after all and you're doing us all a favour by keeping his genes away.

 

[Drifterwood]

well.. since you like married ladies... parts of you are ruffled by it :tongue1::wink:

I like ladies :smile:. Most have not been married. Some have been and some of these have chosen not to divulge that fact. Perhaps they were under the mistaken impression that I had morals :biggrin1:.

 

[Guy-jin]

I have not gone through the whole thread since my last post, but I'll try to later. In the mean time, let me just clarify something on the 1-2% in white Americans/10% in black Americans/etc. numbers versus the 30%+ numbers. The lower numbers are from attempts at unbiased studies. The higher numbers are subject to fairly strong ascertainment bias. Specifically, the 30% is taken from the group of people who take paternity tests. Who makes up the bulk of that group? People of doubtful paternity. So you're talking about a group naturally enriched for non-paternity.

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

I am late to the game but this study about how women pick men of a certain type while ovulating is quite interesting in many ways to me. I haven't ovulated in about 10 years and I can't say my taste in men has changed much at all. Probably because my personality has more to do with it than my hormones.

 

[petite]

I am late to the game but this study about how women pick men of a certain type while ovulating is quite interesting in many ways to me. I haven't ovulated in about 10 years and I can't say my taste in men has changed much at all. Probably because my personality has more to do with it than my hormones.

But there's no proven relationship between betraying one's mate when in a committed relationship and ovulation. That's the problem. It's speculation that a woman would be so biologically driven that a small hormone surge would override her ability to reason.

I'll take myself as an example. At my horniest I was spending an embarrassing number of hours masturbating and watching porn. I gravitated towards toys that plug in because they don't wear out batteries, causing the toy to become weaker and weaker the longer I use it. I wrote erotica to read and fantasize and masturbate to, often inspired by my favorite images. I have folders stuffed full of erotic images, links to favorite pornos, a novel's worth of erotic story telling. I'm talking a serious devotion to hedonism here. When I indulge, I am a woman who definitely appreciates masculinity. However, nothing in the world could ever make me betray TheBF. He just gets fucked more often.

Being horny isn't enough to explain infidelity.

 

[Drifterwood]

Being horny isn't enough to explain infidelity.

It just isn't that simple. And people have been trying to say this. Genetic infidelity is different to sexual infidelity, the latter being far more common, and there are a whole set of reasons and circumstances for both to happen with only some being mutual. You can't transfer your own morality and perceived biology to all women, just as I can't to all men.

The question remains, no matter how much you wish to drown it because you think it is an attack on all women, that whilst the vast majority of women are genetically monogamous, why are some not?

 

[petite]

It just isn't that simple. And people have been trying to say this. Genetic infidelity is different to sexual infidelity, the latter being far more common, and there are a whole set of reasons and circumstances for both to happen with only some being mutual. You can't transfer your own morality and perceived biology to all women, just as I can't to all men.

The question remains, no matter how much you wish to drown it because you think it is an attack on all women, that whilst the vast majority of women are genetically monogamous, why are some not?

That wasn't a comment on morality, it was a comment on that particular study. Since they did not track who cheated and who didn't, one cannot simply speculate about who might or might not. It's not scientific. I was using myself as an example to illustrate why one simply cannot assume a direct correlation between horny chics who appreciate looking at men and cheating ones. Multiple people have brought up the exact same study and attempted correlation with cheating, when that study doesn't reveal anything about infidelity, just sexual attraction. I'm talking about science, not morality.

Obviously some women cheat, but one cannot simply point to any study about female sexual attraction and apply it to pop theories about infidelity because those studies don't distinguish between cheating and non-cheating women. If you want to discuss actual research on infidelity, bring up studies done on infidelity using people who have actually cheated.

For example, this article uses some surveys done about infidelity to make speculations, but at least the data actually involves people who cheat. What is fascinating to me is that according to the article, women over 60 and under 35 are cheating more than they used to by a modest amount, but women between 35-60 years of age are not cheating more. These changes in behavior over time but only by certain generations would speak of social and cultural reasons for cheating, not genetic or biological ones.

I'm unsure of what you mean when you use the phrase "genetically monogamous" but mainly because I don't believe that women who cheat have any particular set of genes that makes them different from other women, except in the sense that I believe that certain personality disorders may have a genetic basis and people with certain personality disorders are probably more likely to cheat. However, I think the capacity to cheat exists in everyone, the same way that the capacity for any kind of wrongdoing exists in anyone. I don't believe there are people who are genetically "good" in a moral sense.

 

[JC8]

This thread is pretty cute, especially in the tone and tenor of the replies. The statement in question isn't universally true, but there's quite a bit of social psychology, on both the theoretical and quantitative study levels, which validates it in the general sense.

We can wish it weren't the case because it smacks against the concepts of equality and fairness that we've been told are the founding pillars of our societies, but at the end of the day the numbers just don't mesh out.

Thank you for framing this better than I could have; the desire of reasonable, fairly intelligent people to use anecdotes to argue against generalities will always baffle me.

As for the woman who provided an unpopular opinion early in the thread, and was subsequently labeled a whore, thank you for your honesty - those who attacked her, no ill-will, just concern. Perhaps you should be working with a professional to work through your Madonna-Whore issues.

 

[EllieP]

Having never cheated I don't know what goes on in the mind of a cheater. Alpha male or not, my man is my man.

Blaming the victim is a slippery slope that absolves most all crimes. Not going down that one.

 

[Drifterwood]

I'm unsure of what you mean when you use the phrase "genetically monogamous" but mainly because I don't believe that women who cheat have any particular set of genes that makes them different from other women, except in the sense that I believe that certain personality disorders may have a genetic basis and people with certain personality disorders are probably more likely to cheat. However, I think the capacity to cheat exists in everyone, the same way that the capacity for any kind of wrongdoing exists in anyone. I don't believe there are people who are genetically "good" in a moral sense.

You'll like this article Cheating Gene - Is Cheating Genetic - Marie Claire

You then get this The love-cheat gene: One in four born to be unfaithful, claim scientists | Mail Online which is based on the work of Justin Garcia at the Kinsey institute.

Genetic monogamy is that monogamy which relates to having kids. You may agree not to be sexually monogamous with a partner, but you can agree that if you have kids, it will only be with your partner.

This thread is frankly a bit of a mess. When people talk of Alpha Male, they mean this stereotype of "successful, authoratative, charismatic" etc etc. It's bullshit as I have said a few times IMO. I think some of you are confusing the concept with your own realities of your number one male and therefore getting a bit pissy about the charge that you would cheat.

However, there is data that suggests that non paternity rates are considerably lower the higher you go up the social pecking order. I think this is worthy of debate. Maybe a new thread - "Why are non paternity rates lower, the higher up the social pecking order you go?" You would still be correct to say that the vast majority of women are genetically monogamous, and that in itself is also interesting when compared with the number who end up not being sexually monogamous, by agreement or not.

BTW - I absolutely do not trust the responses to fidelity questions in US surveys.

 

[helgaleena]

Hmmm...maybe I should take the "nice" outa my name...

Oh no please! Your dick is nice all by itself! Not that I would wish you to be nasty just because your dick isn't...

 

[helgaleena]

OP-- It's a myth. :240:

Being alpha won't save you from a cheatin' spouse if that is what they want to do.

 

[spoon]

OP-- It's a myth. :240:

Being alpha won't save you from a cheatin' spouse if that is what they want to do.

:hail: :biglaugh:

 

[petite]

You'll like this article Cheating Gene - Is Cheating Genetic - Marie Claire

You then get this The love-cheat gene: One in four born to be unfaithful, claim scientists | Mail Online which is based on the work of Justin Garcia at the Kinsey institute.

I have no idea why you linked me to the Marie Claire article. It's probably the first article I've ever read in that magazine. Did you think I would like it? I prefer Scientific American, Science Daily, or even Discover magazine for my popular science reading, actual scientific journals for the meat and potatoes.

As far as the Daily Mail is concerned, I hate that POS "newspaper" so much I scanned it for the relevant data and Googled a more reliable source on the subject. It's a good find, and very interesting. I've read about it before.

Propensity for one-night stands, uncommitted sex could be genetic, study suggests

See, this is what I was talking about when I said that I believe that there are certain genes that predispose people to certain personality disorders and that those might predispose certain people to cheat more often.

"The biggest culprit seems to be the dopamine receptor D4 polymorphism, or DRD4 gene. Already linked to sensation-seeking behavior such as alcohol use and gambling, DRD4 is known to influence the brain's chemistry and subsequently, an individual's behavior."

I wouldn't be surprised if researchers tested these individuals with that gene and found an unusually high incidence of certain personality disorders such as borderline, narcissistic, histrionic, antisocial, or psychopathy.

That's the first real data anyone has provided in this entire thread that is actually about infidelity, and it's an interesting read, too. Thank you for that. I'd like more of that. No more Marie Claire articles, please.

Genetic monogamy is that monogamy which relates to having kids. You may agree not to be sexually monogamous with a partner, but you can agree that if you have kids, it will only be with your partner.

Oh! That's what you meant! Thank you for explaining that. You meant that you believe that misattributed paternity occurs in only a very small percentage of cases.

This thread is frankly a bit of a mess. When people talk of Alpha Male, they mean this stereotype of "successful, authoratative, charismatic" etc etc. It's bullshit as I have said a few times IMO. I think some of you are confusing the concept with your own realities of your number one male and therefore getting a bit pissy about the charge that you would cheat.

I'm not going to speak for anyone else but what gets me pissy is misapplied data, bad scientific research or bad interpretations of scientific research, rampant innumeracy, and gross generalizations that avoid what I believe to be the truth, that human behavior is far more complex and fascinating than can be explained by stereotypes and generalizations. When those things are used to argue that a huge number of fathers are raising someone else's kids, then my annoyance goes up by a degree because it's not only bad science, it's bad science used to support misogynistic fears that men have about women.

BTW - I absolutely do not trust the responses to fidelity questions in US surveys.

At least that data was gathered by a researcher who studies infidelity from people who are actual cheaters.

However, there is data that suggests that non paternity rates are considerably lower the higher you go up the social pecking order.

Please provide this data. I don't doubt that it's true. It makes sense to me because the wealthier people are, the more that they use birth control in general, however, things that sound reasonable often aren't reflected by reality. I would like to read the data myself.

 

[Guy-jin]

However, there is data that suggests that non paternity rates are considerably lower the higher you go up the social pecking order. I think this is worthy of debate. Maybe a new thread - "Why are non paternity rates lower, the higher up the social pecking order you go?" You would still be correct to say that the vast majority of women are genetically monogamous, and that in itself is also interesting when compared with the number who end up not being sexually monogamous, by agreement or not.

I challenge you to provide that data to be evaluated right here on this big dicks forum. :tongue:

Seriously though, I'd love to hear what study could possibly have found a statistically significant result with regards to that question. How could they even ascertain that? They just happened upon a cache of suddenly honest cheaters high up on the "social pecking order"? Or are you talking about associating contraception use with some social factors and then correlating that to the non-paternity rates? Because that's not going to be proof of anything but a correlation.

 

[petite]

I challenge you to provide that data to be evaluated right here on this big dicks forum. :tongue:

Seriously though, I'd love to hear what study could possibly have found a statistically significant result with regards to that question. How could they even ascertain that? They just happened upon a cache of suddenly honest cheaters high up on the "social pecking order"? Or are you talking about associating contraception use with some social factors and then correlating that to the non-paternity rates? Because that's not going to be proof of anything but a correlation.

Oh, I read that and thought of contraceptive usage. He was implying that women actually cheat less on wealthier men, not that they're more careful about their birth control. I agree. I don't see how one would distinguish the cause of lower non-paternity rates among wealthier people as being from less infidelity instead of higher rates of contraception usage.

 

[paigexox]

Brief snip from my own notes I took in a human sexuality course (please excuse the shorthand/choppiness).

Kenrick et al., 1987
-videos of two men or two women interacting (participant viewers were of the opposite sex)
-manipulation: dominance of one of the people seen in the video was made to be more or less socially dominant
-men find women attractive regardless of dominance; women's attraction is dependent upon social dominance ( + dom = + attr.)

Jensen-Campbell and colleagues (1995)
-women on average prefer the more socially dominant male, but only when he is more agreeable towards them
-socially dominant and a jerk = dislike, socially dominant + nice = like


In regards to infidelity, I do not recall any claims that women "do or do not cheat on alpha males”. What I do know is that there are theories which posit a genetic basis for cheating. E.g., ideal qualities in a sexual mate do not always align with those of a paternal figure, so there is a reproductive advantage conferred to those mating with the most genetically appealing male, and having another who is willing to make greater paternal investments raise the child. Offspring from multiple partners also makes sense due to an innate physiological drive to seek out those possessing complimentary immune systems (sort of a don't put your eggs all in one basket approach).

Relationship models might even depict infidelity as a defensive mechanism such that equity can be regained within a relationship where the perceived costs-to-benefits ratio is skewed.

The big thing to remember is simply that genetics predispose you to act, or react to stimuli in a given way. The environment, social norms, and past learning dictates what genes will be expressed and when -- potentially overriding the predisposition altogether.

 

[petite]

I found the reference papers. I like that, "The Psychology of Nice People." :smile:

While there may be a genetic advantage to mating with a more physically appealing male, the risk than one would lose a mate who would commit the time and resources to raising offspring may be too great to take a risk. Males who suspect that they have been cuckolded are not loyal to the women who have cuckolded them. While it may be an evolutionary advantage for the female to cuckold the male, evolution could just as easily have moved in the other direction whereupon the male, who also has an evolutionary need to pass on his genes, has become more adept at determining when he's been cuckolded, making it no longer a worthwhile risk for the female to cuckold him and be abandoned to raise her offspring on her own. That's how evolution could have just as easily made it more advantageous for a female to be loyal. This is the reason why such theories must be supported by data and why one must keep an open mind in the absence of data.

Do you happen to know of any research supporting those theories regarding infidelity? I am genuinely curious and would appreciate links or sources.

 

[Drifterwood]

Here you go.

Measuring paternal discrepancy and its public health consequences -- Bellis et al. 59 (9): 749 -- Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health

 

[Drifterwood]

The big thing to remember is simply that genetics predispose you to act, or react to stimuli in a given way. The environment, social norms, and past learning dictates what genes will be expressed and when -- potentially overriding the predisposition altogether.

I agree completely.

OP-- It's a myth. :240:

Being alpha won't save you from a cheatin' spouse if that is what they want to do.

This would seem to be the case.

ISpecifically, the 30% is taken from the group of people who take paternity tests. Who makes up the bulk of that group? People of doubtful paternity. So you're talking about a group naturally enriched for non-paternity.

Any thoughts on how you get into this group? Is it random, or are there any recognisable trends? It is taken from nearly a million tests in the US now, if I remember correctly.